Back on March 22, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposal for a semiconductor materials growth lab for the UC Davis College of Engineering, at an existing building with light industrial use, located at 2900 Spafford Street.
According to the staff report, “The research and lab use is a permitted use under the zoning for the site. However, the quantity of chemicals that the lab is expected to handle exceeds the threshold amount established in the City Zoning Code and is considered a hazardous material which requires planning approval.”
After holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued this item to April 12 for additional discussion, including a suggestion that the applicant conduct public outreach with their neighbors, which was to be held on April 5.
The proposal has triggered concerns about the safety of those in nearby locations, as well as the general public.
According to staff, “The project has undergone a thorough planning review to consider the potential safety concerns with review by the City’s Building, Fire, and Public Works Departments to ensure compliance with applicable City and code requirements. Yolo County Environmental Health and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District which also have regulatory authority, were consulted.
“The proposed lab use will be designed to meet the requirements of the Building and Fire Code. The Code addresses construction and separation requirements for different occupancy classifications. It also addresses the storage of materials and chemicals based on the type, amount, and compatibility of different chemicals to control the potential risks. The requirements are designed to isolate and contain any potential incident and reduce the danger to adjacent uses and properties. Additional measures and lab safety protocol will also be in place.”
The proposed semiconductor materials growth lab would occupy approximately 4,420 square feet of the 24,000 square-foot building. The Spafford Street area and adjacent properties consist of a mix of light industrial, R&D, office, commercial buildings and a neighborhood retail center.
A Montessori daycare is located approximately 500 feet to the west, at 2802 Spafford Street.
City staff is asking the Planning Commission to find that “the proposed project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as an existing facility.” They explain, “The proposed project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 which exempts the operation and leasing of existing facilities and structures. There are no new or unusual circumstances related to the project or project site that would require further environmental review.”
The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) “provides an opportunity to evaluate the compatibility of the use with the surrounding uses and to address potential concerns. The research lab use is a permitted use that already exists on the site and is permitted by right.”
However, “the use of hazardous materials raises potential safety concerns.”
In a letter from Eileen Samitz, she expressed concern: “If the conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission, it would allow significantly higher volumes of combustible, flammable and toxic chemicals near a children’s day-care center and residential housing.”
She writes, “The UCD lab would have on-site combustible gases, including hydrogen and oxygen, as well as toxic and flammable chemicals such as hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid. Having combustible gases or these toxic chemicals alone would be concerning enough, but to have both is a formula for a potential disaster.”
She cites a number of problems with the application, including the presence of the Montessori daycare facility within 500 feet of the lab, plus three existing affordable housing apartment complexes down the road on Fifth Street.
Ms. Samitz argues, “The obvious concerns are that this is an inappropriate use of a site too close to so many homes as well as a day-care facility and other businesses. This UCD semiconductor materials growth lab belongs on campus, not in a neighborhood where a lab accident of combustible gases and toxic chemicals would be disastrous.”
Despite these concerns raised by Ms. Samitz and others, staff continues to recommend that the Planning Commission “find that the proposed project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as an existing facility” and approve the Conditional Use Permit.
City staff writes, “Applicant and University personnel have been working closely with City departments to address potential safety issues related to the handling of the hazardous chemicals to ensure the safety of adjacent tenants, nearby businesses, and the community at-large.
“The laboratory itself is required to comply with Building and Fire Code requirements based on the use and occupancy to guarantee that adequate safeguards are in place to isolate, control, and respond to a potential incident,” staff writes.
They continue: “While the UC Davis Fire Department provides general oversight of the use, the City of Davis Fire Department will respond to any incidents. The two departments maintain a close working relationship with on-going coordination, cooperation and training for mutual aid. Additionally, the lab will need to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from city and comply with conditions of the permit.”
Staff concludes: “Compliance with standard safety protocol and requirements of the City and other regulatory agencies ensure that the handling of hazardous materials at the proposed lab will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. Staff believes that the necessary findings can be made to support the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project based on the recommended Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“This UCD semiconductor materials growth lab belongs on campus, not in a neighborhood where a lab accident of combustible gases and toxic chemicals would be disastrous.”
Eileen raises an important point to which I do not know the answer. When the merger between UCD and Davis fire departments was first being considered, I had a conversation with Chief Trauernicht. At that time, he had pointed out a discrepancy between the training of UCD firefighters vs those of the city in management of hazardous materials with the UCD firefighters having been required to obtain more specialized training. If this is still the case, I think that prior to advancement of this proposal, an assessment needs to been done of whether city firefighters have all now undergone the specialized training necessary to management of these toxic materials.
While I tend to agree with Eileen that the most appropriate location for such a facility would be on campus, and certainly not within 500 ft. of a day care center, I believe that the above training for all city firefighters would be a prerequisite to even considering such a move.
There seems like there is a question not being addressed here – what is the benefit to the city to have this facility in the city rather than the university.
No benefit at all. Every time we allow a commercial building to be occupied by the University the City loses both in terms of lost property taxes and a lost opportunity for a private company to locate in the space. The only benefit is to the owners of the commercial property.
Mark, the University can eliminate that problem/challenge by agreeing to the same kind of “Make Whole Provision” that they agreed to in the Nishi process.
So Matt,
Why isn’t this “Make Whole Provision” for all UCD properties leased or owned in the City in place yet? How much property tax is the City losing because of UCD’s tax exemption status?
Also, the the City keeps making clear the fiscal challenges that the City has, why would the City invite yet another situation where the City is denied property tax due due UCD using even more commercial space in the City?
Also, does the City have a list yet of how many properties are in the City that UCD either owns or is leasing, and how much total property tax that the City is losing to UCD since it is tax exempt? They need to include the master leasing of hundreds of apartments as well as the commercial space owned or lease by UCD.
This information needed has been talked about for quite a while. What is the status?
Did the University agree to that provision, or was it the Developer? The City has the leverage to ask that of a Developer or property owner, but I don’t see any reason for the University to agree when the law is on their side.
In its 100+ year history has the University of California ever agreed to such an arrangement with a local entity? If not, what makes you believe that it will do so now?
Eileen, the simple answer to your question is that until the last 24 months no one gave any consideration to asking UCD to voluntarily forego the benefits they realize from the provisions of the State laws regarding Property Taxes for non-profit and government entities.
Mark is probably technically correct in his statement about Nishi, but the economic impact on the University would have been the same.
I think you are making some bad assumptions. First, the University has no incentive to give up its tax-free status (even indirectly through a make-whole agreement), and once it agrees to do so with one entity, every other entity will expect the same. Anyone who really thinks that is going to happen has probably been partaking in too much recreational chemotherapy.
Second, the lease rates will likely be the same for University and non-University tenants, with any potential ‘make whole’ expense included in the calculation of the overall rent, or simply eaten by the owner. There is unlikely to be any extra economic impact on the University whether the agreement is in place or not.
Mark, I believe the precedent has been set (both by UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz) a number of years ago. It is my understanding (Dan Carson may have the specific references in his January 9, 2017 report to the FBC — see http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-council/commissions-and-committees/finance-and-budget-commission/agendas-and-minutes) that both those UCs make annual payments to their respective host cities that amount to several million dollars.
That doesn’t mean UCD will follow suit, just that the precedent is already there.
” the University has no incentive to give up its tax-free status”
That’s not necessarily true. If the only way they could have off-campus sites for these projects was to give up at least some of their tax-free status, it might be enough incentive.
And, the “biggie” is the ‘residential commerical’ properties. IE, apartment complexes they own or have “master leases” on… exempt from prop tax, exempt from reassessments…
Folk seem to be missing some facts…
Sodium and Chorine are highly toxic… yet, we need NaCl… salt
Hydrogen and oxygen are highly dangerous… yet we need H2O… water
Presence of highly dangerous chemicals is not inherently dangerous… there are many protocols for how they are used… zoning won’t change that… these chemicals will not be in the hands of 3-12-year olds…
Ban all cars, particularly those powered by gasoline or electricity… would save many lives… gasoline and electricity are both hazardous…
Think, people…
Ok sometimes it is nice to actually do one’s research prior to writing. This time, I get to correct my own post.
The information that I got from Chief Trauernicht is that the specialized training and certification that I had mentioned is not limited to the campus firefighters but is concentrated in a specialized response team that addresses these issues on a county basis and thus my previously stated concern is not an issue.
I still have concerns about the proximity to a child care center, not because I think that the children will be invited in to play with the chemicals, but because there is always the possibility for accidents to occur & with this kind of proximity, my concern would be with regard to fumes. If I am incorrect, and this is not an issue, according to the expert, not me or anyone else without specific information, I will happily correct this post also.
Roberta,
The Natural Resources Commission sub-committee on toxics met with UCD last Tuesday and gave them a list of questions to answer. Interestingly, UCD has not responded to these questions yet the project is being fast-tracked to the Planning Commission this Wednesday. The Natural Resources Commission is aware of this issue and voted unanimously that the commission should give input. So unless there are responses, the NRC sub-committee may not be able to have a report by the Wednesday meeting. Yet, the City scheduled the Planning Commission meeting to vote on it with or without the NRC report on Wednesday
It is interesting that UCD made pretty clear how they wanted to “fast-track” this application (the term fast-track was actually in the UCD application letter). So the City appears to be fast-tracking this UCD application for a UCD semi-conductor lab which:
1) brings nothing but risk to the City
2) would deny the City more property tax
3) is using commercial space that is better used by other non-university businesses which would pay property tax.
This UCD semi-conductor lab simply belongs on the UCD campus.
Thanks for that information, Eileen. That is very concerning for me purely from a process point of view. The NRC is the Commission that has the expertise to analyze and discuss this. The Planning Commission should wait for their input. I can’t see a justification on the City’s part for skipping that step and fast-tracking.
I still don’t understand why this hasn’t gone to the Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Commission.